Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-01 00:44:35 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B2CE257C2CFD4A83F2E27FE68333F422F0524EBAD12FE89F4B781624144ECC55
Participant Details

Original Note:

The verdict in the Trump case was not based on any specific case law but rather on the fact the judge had not given correct US constitutional interpretation and instructions

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1796691956287807939
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B2CE257C2CFD4A83F2E27FE68333F422F0524EBAD12FE89F4B781624144ECC55
  • createdAtMillis - 1717202675921
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1796691956287807939B2CE257C2CFD4A83F2E27FE68333F422F0524EBAD12FE89F4B781624144ECC55